|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 467 Records
-
2002 (7) TMI 623 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Seizure - Transit checks - Confiscation of vehicle ... ... ... ... ..... und to be totally unreliable. The submission made by the driver would not cure a basic defect in the Panchnama. We find action of the Additional Commissioner of not placing reliance on the faulty panchnama to be correct. 5. emsp The next submission is that the adjudicating authority should have directed confiscation of the vehicle under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. We find the proposal to have been made in the Show Cause Notice where Shri Jawahar C. Watvani was the noticee. It is also correct that the adjudicating authority has not dwelt on such liability at all. But we find that the present appeal does not cover this aspect at all. Revenue should have filed a separate appeal for this. M/s. Samrat Food Products not being the owner of the vehicle, this appeal filed showing them as the respondent cannot cover the aspect of non-confiscation of the vehicle. 6. emsp On these observations we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. This appeal is dismissed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 622 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Packing material ... ... ... ... ..... price of the goods including their packing. It is of no relevance as to whether the goods are in primary packing or secondary packing. 4. emsp The records show that the appellants were selling part of the sheet glass in question without wooden packing. Their contention is that wooden packing is required only for safety during transport. It is not a requirement for sale at factory gate. The sale about of 11 of the sheet glass at factory gate confirms this position. The impugned order was based on an assumption that the appellants were availing Modvat credit in respect of the wooden boxes. This assumption is now found to be without factual basis. 5. emsp It is clear that the wooden boxes/crates is not the normal packing of the sheet glass manufactured by the appellant. Such packing is used only for safety of transport. The cost of such additional packing is not required to be included in the assessable value. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (7) TMI 621 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Redemption fine - Car import - Precedent and established practice - Redemption fine - Reasonable expectation of importer - Absolute confiscation - Cars
-
2002 (7) TMI 620 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... and he files Bill of entry holding out as importer, there can be no question of penal proceedings holding such person as importer. The Commissioner has not discussed the applicability or otherwise of these judgments in the context of the present case. As noted above, in the instant case the appellants have not claimed the goods nor is there any evidence to show that they have entered into any transaction for the goods and hence merely on the basis of a fax messages alleged to have been sent by a third party, the Commissioner has come to a conclusion about the complicity of the appellant in the alleged importation. We do not find any evidence either direct or circumstantial to come to such a conclusion. 6. emsp In view of what has been stated above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any material to sustain the imposition of penalty on the appellants. The appeal against imposition of penalty succeeds and is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
-
2002 (7) TMI 619 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Modvat/Cenvat - Date of accrual - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... be available to the appellants in terms of the said notification which was holding the field on the date when the appellants became entitled to avail the credit in terms of the provisions of Rule 57Q. As such, I do not find any merits in the appellants contention. 5. emsp As regards the limitation in respect of one of the show cause notices, the appellants contended that the same has been issued after a period of six months. However, they have failed to produce on record any evidence reflecting that the return was filed by them by 5th of the next month, thus making the show cause notice issued on 7-4-2000 as being barred by limitation. However, in the interest of justice, I would like to give the appellants another opportunity to produce the said documents before the original adjudicating authority who would decide the question of limitation in respect of the demand of Rs. 92,000.00 (Rupees ninety-two thousand) (approx.) afresh. The appeal is thus disposed of in above terms.
-
2002 (7) TMI 618 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Reference to High Court - Modvat on inputs ... ... ... ... ..... bove cases considered specifically these issues and therefore they get precedence to decide this issue. In view of the above analysis, I find that the prayer of the appellants that Hydrochloric Acid and Sulphuric Acid, in view of their use considered above, would be eligible inputs under the Modvat Scheme, is accepted. The order-in-appeal impugned is accordingly modified to this extent. The appellants succeeed accordingly with consequential relief as per law. rdquo 3. emsp Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner has filed the reference application before the Hon rsquo ble High Court raising the above question for determination as per law. As the Hon rsquo ble High Court has directed for submitting the records by drawing statement of the case, the same has been drawn up. The Registry is directed to remit the records to the Registrar of Hon rsquo ble High Court of Judicature at Madras for placing the records before the appropriate Bench for disposal as per law.
-
2002 (7) TMI 614 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Smuggling - Crockery and air-conditioners - Proof of legal import ... ... ... ... ..... oms, Calcutta - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 266, to draw inference that the goods were smuggled. But, in our view, the same is not attracted to the facts of the preset case. In the first case, the person from whom the goods were seized, made inculpatory self-incriminating statement which was corroborated by other source also, regarding smuggled nature of goods, while in other case, the sufficient evidence was brought on record to prove the tainted nature of the seized goods. But, in the present case, such is not the position, in view of the facts, circumstances, evidence and law referred to above. 16. emsp In view of the discussions made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner in respect of the confiscation of both the seized goods, detailed above under Sections 111(d) and (f) and imposition of penalty on both the appellants under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act is set aside in toto. The appeals of the appellants are allowed with consequential relief, permissible under the law.
-
2002 (7) TMI 611 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
Transformers designed for Windmills eligible to exemption under Sl. No. 12 of Notification 205/88-C.E. - Transformers, for windmill
-
2002 (7) TMI 610 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ir-conditioners. The Adjudicating Authority has not applied Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules for treating the sub-assemblies as complete air-conditioners. Further, the learned Advocate has relied upon the decision in the case of Sea Gull Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., supra, wherein the Tribunal considered the availability of exemption under Notification No. 56/95 to an assembly and held that the definition in the Import-Export Policy is not the common understanding of the term ldquo part rdquo or the understanding contained in the Explanatory Notes of the Harmonised System of Nomenclature upon which the tariff is based rdquo . We are thus of the view that the Applicants have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour for waiving the requirement of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty and penalty. We order accordingly and stay the recovery of the entire amount of duty and penalty during the pendency of the Appeal. 5. emsp The matter is posted for regular hearing on 5-8-2002.
-
2002 (7) TMI 609 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... -12-96. In these instructions it is, inter alia, provided, ldquo The clearance of the inputs as such for export under bond can still be treated at par with final product and the manner of utilization of the Modvat credit in such cases will be governed by the provisions of Rule 57F(4). rdquo In the present case, it is not disputed that items have actually been exported by the appellants. The details relating to the analysis of the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) and the Explanation (e) to Rule 57A(1) can be gone into only at the time of final hearing of the appeal. For the present, suffice it to say that since the goods have actually been exported, there does not appear to be prima facie ground to recover from them the credit of duty availed on the exported goods. Consequently, the appellants are allowed the waiver from deposit of duty and penalty imposed on them and their recovery is stayed till the disposal of their appeal. The appeal is posted for final disposal on 19-8-2002.
-
2002 (7) TMI 607 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... nd period cannot be worked out in the Remand proceedings. We would therefore allow this application and order that Para 3(f) should therefore be amended. It is replaced to read as under - ldquo Para 3(f) - Since we are remanding the matter back for de novo quantification of the demands of duty and the Modvat set off eligible, we set aside the penalty and order that the same should be reconsidered in view of the duty amounts determined in the de novo proceedings. We are not giving any finding on the same since we have directed that the duty demand should be re-worked out. We leave the question of limitation point for both sides to be determined in the de novo proceedings being ordered. The lower authority should therefore decide the matter of limitation based on law while reworking the demands in this case. rdquo 3. emsp The ROM application filed by the party is disposed of by ordering substituting Para 3(f) of Final Order No. 247/2002, dated 22-2-2002 as ordered herein above.
-
2002 (7) TMI 605 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ravention of the provisions of the rules and/or their removal with the intent to evade payment of duty themselves stood withdrawn against the manufacturer, such goods cannot be subject to the confiscation as has been done by the Deputy Commissioner in his Order in this case. Further, a person can be subject to penalty under Rule 209A only when he knows or has reason to believe that the excisable goods he is acquiring, possessing, transporting, removing, keeping, selling, purchasing or dealing with are liable to confiscation. Since, in this case I have held that the goods are not liable to confiscation, the question of imposition of penalty under Rule 209A on the appellants would also not arise. Thus the orders - both at the original and the lower appellate stage - in this case are passed in complete ignorance and negation of the statutory provisions. The impugned order is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Stay Petition also gets disposed of in the same terms.
-
2002 (7) TMI 603 - CEGAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Limitation - Refund - Modvat/Cenvat - Eligibility of credit ... ... ... ... ..... mitted position in that case, when duty liability accrued, the Modvat scheme was not in force, as is seen from Para 6 of that decision. In the case before us, it is no body rsquo s case that Modvat scheme was not applicable to the respondent rsquo s end products during the years 1991-92, 1992-93 or when duty liability accrued. Therefore, the case law relied upon by Revenue is not applicable. (d) When we find that the assessments have been made and the duty demands cannot be now questioned and the debits as have been made are in order, since the appellant was eligible for Modvat credit from the date his goods became dutiable, then there is no case/cause as taken in grounds in the Revenue rsquo s appeal to uphold the same. The appeal made in violation or ignorance of the Board rsquo s instruction cannot be upheld. 5. emsp The Revenue rsquo s appeal is partially allowed only as regards the deleting the Commissioner rsquo s directions regarding favourable consideration of refund.
-
2002 (7) TMI 601 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Valuation - LPG ... ... ... ... ..... (130) E.L.T. 322 (Tribunal) 2000 (36) RLT 611 has held that though the LPG was removed in bulk under stock transfer arrangement to the appellants rsquo own bottling plants for home sale to domestic buyers after bottling, the duty was required to be paid on the value fixed by Oil Coordination Committee in respect of the LPG packed domestic and not at the higher price fixed for LPG bulk. We find that IOC was one of the appellants before the Tribunal in the above referred case as is evident from Para 3 of the judgment. As such by following the ratio of the earlier decision of the Larger Bench in the above case we hold that the appellants were required to pay duty at the lower price of LPG packed domestic fixed by the Oil Coordination Committee. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Asstt. Commr. for considering the appellants rsquo claim in accordance with law including the issue of unjust enrichment. The appeal is thus allowed in above terms.
-
2002 (7) TMI 599 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Refund - Protest - Unjust enrichment - Captive consumption ... ... ... ... ..... cation of the goods under Chapter 39 during the relevant period. This finding of fact was not challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) and before the Commissioner (Appeals), the only issue raised by the appellants, was in respect of unjust enrichment and the Commissioner (Appeals), after relying upon the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Solar Pesticide Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 401 held that principle of unjust enrichment will be applicable in the case of captive consumption and the Commissioner (Appeals) gave a finding that no evidence had been given by the appellants that incidence of duty paid on the goods captively consumed, had not been passed on to the buyers and the same had not been included in the price of the products. Against this finding, in the present appeal, the appellants have not produced any evidence in support of their claim. Hence, we find no merit in the present appeal and the same is rejected.
-
2002 (7) TMI 597 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
EXIM - Import - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... covered heads and they have been held, by both the authorities below, as used for the packing of textile garments. On our part, we would say that consumer goods are goods to be understood as goods which are available in the market for consumption by common people. The goods which are exclusively consumed by industries like textile industry might not fall within the ambit of lsquo consumer goods. rsquo The pins in question, which were admittedly used at the relevant time only by manufacturers of textile garments for packing purposes and which have not been shown to us to have been used by the common people during that period, will be covered under ITC (HS) sub-heading No. 73193009.90 (other pins of a kind not classifiable as consumer goods). The goods were freely importable and, consequently, there was no warrant for confiscation or fine. We do not find any merit in the Revenue rsquo s appeal. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustained and these appeals are rejected.
-
2002 (7) TMI 595 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
EXIM Policy - Consumer goods in SKD/CKD - Ball point pens ... ... ... ... ..... fy human need of writing is one which is of a relatively sophisticated nature involving use of specially designed machinery. Therefore, this could not be consumer goods. 5. emsp The only difference between the facts of that case and the facts before me is that the goods here are all imported under one bill of entry and not under different bills of entry as in lion Pencils. That difference is not sufficient to say that the ratio of the earlier decision will not apply. These goods also have to be subjected not only to the processes as the goods in the earlier decision if what the appellant says is to be correct to mere processes involving not only the refill but the barrels, and other parts of the ballpoint pens. It is therefore not possible to say that the goods had attained the nature of writing instrument which can directly satisfy any human need. They would therefore not fall under paragraph 156 of the policy. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order set aside.
-
2002 (7) TMI 593 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Payment of duty through cheque - Relevant date ... ... ... ... ..... order, held that the amount of Rs. 7 lakh was deposited in the bank on 3-1-2002 through cheque and the amount was realized on 5-1-2002. Therefore, the respondents are not the defaulters in payment of excise duty. Heard both sides. 4. emsp The contention of the Revenue is that the amount, in question, which was deposited through cheque, was realised on 5-1-2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents paid duty before due date i.e. 5-1-2002. The issue regarding presentation of cheque and realization of amount is settled by the Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sanghi Polyesters Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 344 (A.P.). The Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in this case held that the receipt of cheque and not date of realization of its proceeds, is the date of payment of duty. 5. emsp In view of the above decision of the Hon rsquo ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (7) TMI 583 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Winding up - Disclaimer of onerous property in case of a company which is being wound up ... ... ... ... ..... express condition to the contrary. (d)There is a distinction between the point of time when an order of winding up is made and at the point of time when an order of dissolution is made, the company continues to exist between the two terminii. (e)A condition in the lease deed permitting a lessee to give back the possession as and when the lessee chooses to do so cannot be converted into an obligation entitling the lessor to seek possession. (f)A condition in the lease deed by way of requirement to pay rent, per se, does not create an onerous covenant, once readiness and willingness is shown by the lessee, or on its behalf, to discharge such obligation. 41. In light of what is stated hereinbefore, it is not possible to accept the case of the applicants. The possession of the land in question cannot be directed to be handed over to the applicant landlords for the various reasons stated hereinbefore. The applications are, therefore, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (7) TMI 582 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Winding up - Circumstances in which a company may be wound up ... ... ... ... ..... rawn out litigation the business of a company had come to a standstill and a part of its business was banned by legislation, Shah, J. (later C.J.) held that we cannot on that ground direct that the company be wound up. The Company could always restart business with assets it possessed. 5. In this case, Company Court after considering the materials produced by the petitioners held that petitioners were not able to prove that this is a fit case to order winding up of the company. It is a discretionary order and on the facts of this case discretion was used correctly. In any event, among the three petitioners who jointly filed a petition for winding up, only the appellant who claims to be the Director-cum-Chairman, whose alleged misappropriation etc. is subject-matter of a proceeding before the Company Law Board, preferred to file appeal. The company petition was rightly dismissed by the Company Court. There is no merit or bona fides in the appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine.
............
|
